Their blood will be on your hands

I am deeply saddened to read many comments here and on other diaries, which are so caught up in Hillary versus Obama, that everyone seems to forget what NARAL is about.  

At 60+ I am older than most of you I think.  
I doubt many of you ever knew a woman who died from a back alley abortion.  I knew three.

I walked into my friends room one morning, many years ago, to find her dead in a pool of blood.  She got an untrained medical student to do an abortion for her.  She died. Alone.  

I doubt many of you ever knew a woman who died from a legal abortion - but performed in an inadequate, un-sterile "poverty" clinic.  I knew 2.

Eighteen days after a new abortion law went into effect in New York State--on 1 July 1970--the heart of a thirty-one-year-old Puerto Rican woman, Carmen Rodriguez, stopped during a saline-induced second-trimester abortion at Lincoln Hospital in the South Bronx. She was the first woman to die from a legal abortion after the reformed New York State abortion law--legalizing termination up to twenty-four weeks--became effective.(1) This tragic event immediately became a lightning rod for criticism of both national and local reproductive policies and the conditions of public hospitals serving the poor in New York City.

http://palante.org/Women&Health.htm

I doubt many of you know women who were part of an experiment conducted on Puerto Rican, and Native American women to pressure them into getting their "tubes tied", never explaining that the tubes couldn't be "untied".  No options for these women to get an abortion.  I know at least 50.

The majority of women who suffer from lack of legal access to abortion have always been poor.  Many are women of color.  Wealthy women have always had other options - to leave and fly to other countries.

NARAL continues the fight.  

As the campaign for the primary has grown more divisive online, NARAL continues to fight for reproductive rights.  Many of the women they are fighting for don't have access to forums like these.  

Any person who vows that they will no longer contribute to NARAL because they endorsed one candidate over another is a traitor to women.  Period.

Women who were forced to use Norplant. Poor women who were experimented on with birth control pills that made them ill.  Women who have no access to condoms.  Young women who don't get sex education.  Women who have been raped, or victims of incest who John McCain doesn't give a shit about.

Is it more important for you to score political points than to continue to battle for those who have little say in how the system controls their access to reproductive control over their own bodies?

I cherish a copy of an old pamphlet from the 1970 "Our Bodies Ourselves" which is now a fat book. I remember making copies of the information in that book, translating them into Spanish, and holding community education classes for women, going door to door educating women in my community about their rights to control their own lives and reproduction.

But most important of all I remember my roommate lying on bloodstained sheets, cold and dead.  Age 19. No health coverage.  No money to go out of the US.  She wanted so badly to finish college and was not prepared to have a child.  So she arranged to get an abortion.  She died.    

So you all have a right to choose.  You can choose to engage in petty political posturing. You can withhold funding for legislative lobbying.  You can feel smug in your so-called feminism.  But the blood of women like my friend will be on your hands.  



Display:


Tips and Mojo to continue the struggle n/t (2.00 / 9)


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:11:39 AM EST

While my mojo offering is phantom... (2.00 / 1)

... my appreciation of your focus on the serious reality women face is real.  Thank you for remembering what it was like for women before Roe v. Wade, and how important it is for Americans to prevent the courts from overturning it.


Ignorance is weakness. Get strong.
by tbetz on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:05:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: While my mojo offering is phantom... (none / 0)

Phantom mojo is always accepted.

We must not ever return  to those days.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good for you! (2.00 / 1)

Thank you for writing this.
We need to remember t hat this election is, as John Edwards says, not just about us individually; it's about ALL of us. There can be consequences to our selfish tantrums.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:10:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sadly (2.00 / 6)

many HRC supporters complain about us Obama supporters as cult of personality types that don't care about the DEM party.

Some HRC supporters need to look in the mirror.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:17:03 AM EST

Re: Sadly (2.00 / 4)

I actually could care less at this point about supporters on either side.  

Dems are the only major Party who can ensure the rights of women, Dems who are male and female.  

Reproductive rights for women should be an issue for women and men.  

Time to stop the bickering and engage in the real battle ahead.

thanks for commenting.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:25:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sadly (2.00 / 1)

I'm a male, so I'll stay away from the NARAL issue and let those who currently have lived with the right decide how important it is to defend for the next generation.

I have a feeling that if it's lost, it'll never come back, though. And that will make for some interesting explaining when the granddaughters ask:

"Could you explain to me just one more time why you voted against Barrack Obama back in '08?"


by xdem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:40:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sadly (2.00 / 1)

NARAL isn't the Democratic party, nor is it part of it.


by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:42:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sadly (none / 0)

No, but Freedom is the democratic party,  and NARAL fights for it.

If you have a problem with their mission or the Democrat's pledge to preserve the right to choose then you know where to go.


Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:01:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Their blood will be on your hands (2.00 / 1)

Traitor? I understand you compassion, but calling people traitors is a bit radical. We live in a Democracy and people can choose to support or not support. Republicans use this same type of tactic.


by soyousay on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:21:49 AM EST

Re: Their blood will be on your hands (2.00 / 3)

Not supporting poor women is traitorous to the feminist/humanist cause.  Yes - I will use the word Traitor.  

traitor = "one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty"

And I ain't hardly a Republican.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:28:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Their blood will be on your hands (2.00 / 1)

According to you, NARAL Is "traitorous" for not supporting a women.


by soyousay on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:33:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Their blood will be on your hands (2.00 / 1)

No, that's according to Taylor Marsh and her ilk.


by Jordache on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:50:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Their blood will be on your hands (none / 0)

I smell hypocrisy.


by soyousay on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:58:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You know they say it's harder for people... (none / 0)

to smell their own body odor than someone else's.  But I believe your stench has finally come up to you.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:01:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You know they say it's harder for people... (1.00 / 0)

It's comments like this that lead to restricted privileges.  And then leads to diaries about unfair site administration.  


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:03:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No...It' comments like soyousay's... (none / 0)

Soyousay has been among the most divisive and harsh.  I've no problem responding in kind when everytime I've tried to reach out to him/her I have not only been dismissed, but also derided.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:07:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No...It' comments like soyousay's... (none / 0)

If you call an opinion that doesn't coincide with yours divisive....So be it.


by soyousay on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not your opinon that is divisive... (none / 0)

It is comments like this "You can have it both ways because you're God and "you know"....Heh :D"

You have done nothing, but deride and dismiss Obama supporters.  If you wish to speak about Wright or your dislike of Obama, I have no problem with that.  But when you deride Obama and call his supporters "cultists," I have an issue with you.  So I'll call you out every time that you are so divisive.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Their blood will be on your hands (2.00 / 4)

I totally agree and Thank you for speaking out.


by Politicalslave on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:24:49 AM EST

I'm sorry, but Markos told us (2.00 / 1)

we didn't have to be single-issue voters anymore. </snark>

Look, I understand what you're saying, I really do, and I'm sorry you lost friends, but I won't vote for Obama. My vote is my own and no one's blood is anywhere near it. My vote will not be subject to threats about any issue, or the emotional arguments about the blood of those who died long before I was born. I will make up my own mind about what's important and how to fight the corruption in our culture, now front and center in both parties. Right now my mind is made up and if he's the nominee, I don't plan to vote for any candidate for president. I can't speak for decisions I may make in the future, but threatening and attempts at emotional manipulation will not sway me.


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:28:22 AM EST

Re: I'm sorry, but Markos told us (2.00 / 2)

exactly which issues are you voting based on? that you could ever vote for McCain?

I don't see how a HRC supporter can ever say they are voting for McCain based on issues.


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:32:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Pay attention (2.00 / 3)

She's talking about supporting NARAL, not voting for Obama.  A lot of people said yesterday that they wouldn't support NARAL ever again because they endorsed Obama.  That's patently ridiculous; their work has nothing to do with who they endorse for President.

Get your head straight.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:32:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She appears to be talking about both (none / 0)

Judging by her comment about McCain.


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:36:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

See her response below. (2.00 / 2)

She is, in fact, talking about NARAL, who will need even more support if an anti-choice barbarian gets into the White House and starts nominating Scalia clones to the Supreme Court.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:42:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See her response below. (2.00 / 1)

Yes, but one power NARAL has is to advocate for pro-choice candidates. I assure you, this election will be over, and the other pro-life orgs are going to endorse Obama too.

As will ALL the organizations that advocate for every damned issue that we progressives care about.

You take away their teeth by pledging not to vote for the candidate they endorse.

And you vote against your own interests.

But yes, that's your prerogative. I'm sympathetic to that. I wanted to vote Green in 04. But I voted for Kerry.

So I don't ever want to hear you complain about Bush again if you won't vote against a guy who's going to continue his policies.


by luckymortal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:38:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See her response below. (none / 0)

Oops, that was to anna belle


by luckymortal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:40:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Their blood will be on your hands (none / 0)

"I will make up my own mind about what's important and how to fight the corruption in our culture . . ."

SO . . . I guess you were not supporting HRC either?

I am not a single-issue voter either, and will vote for either DEM. I do not hold the illusion that either DEM is a saint, but they are the better realistic option to the GOP.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:31:59 AM EST

Re: Their blood will be on your hands (2.00 / 4)

I wasn't telling you to vote for Barack Obama - I was telling folks that they should continue to support NARAL.  Some people here have decided to not spend their dollars to support NARAL.  

This I believe is wrong.

The fact that they endorsed a candidate makes me no never mind - what I care about is women.  

You can stay home, write in a candidate - free country.  I do hope you won't vote for McCain.  

Thank you for commenting.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:34:02 AM EST

Re: Their blood will be on your hands (2.00 / 1)

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for the comment. But I don't know why you're upset about he funding issue. It's as free a country for money as it is for votes. Personally, I'd do whatever it takes to get Nancy Keegan out of NARAL, and restore it to the truly feminist political group it used to be. I stopped giving a long time ago when she endorsed Liebeman over Lamont (without even the courtesy of notifying the CT office, mind you), and when she laid down like a bitch on many Republican-led anti-choice issues over the last several years.

Have you been following these stories?

http://firedoglake.com/2006/12/06/whats- wrong-with-nancy-keenan/
http://firedoglake.com/2006/12/05/please -try-to-at-least-pretend-you-care/

Money is the only tool we have for getting her out, and she needs to be gotten out post haste, before we do lose this right. You do know she's a Catholic on record as saying she believes that abortion is a sin, right? Why would you try to shame women for trying to correct this problem within NARAL?


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:43:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Their blood will be on your hands (2.00 / 2)

If NARAL's mission is advocacy for women's reproductive rights, why play a political card?  There are many groups that advocate for women.  Naral seems to have a different agenda.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:38:35 AM EST

Alright then (none / 0)

How do you feel about NOW endorsing Clinton?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:41:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alright then (none / 0)

thats easy I can tell you what he thinks

If NOW's mission is advocacy for women's rights, why play a political card?  There are many groups that advocate for women.  NOW seems to have a different agenda


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:43:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alright then (1.00 / 0)

How is a women's advocacy group NOT supporting the woman?  


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:45:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alright then (2.00 / 1)

because its not just about sex, do you guys not get that? if the only reason you have to be mad is because they didn't support the one with a vagina you have a long way to go.

equal rights, mean there should be NO difference between a man and a woman, not a well always choose a woman because she is a woman.


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:50:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alright then (1.00 / 0)

Hillary has a documented legacy of advocating for women's rights.  So I ask again, what agenda does NARAL have that it didn't support the woman?


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:53:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alright then (2.00 / 1)

once again the only reason you seem to be arguing that they should support Hillary is because she is a woman.

honestly if you don't see the problem with this then there is nothing really nothing else to discuss, you are right ALL women and women's groups should see what sex organs the candidate has and then endorse.


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:56:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alright then (1.00 / 0)

What I'm saying is that both candidates advocate for women.  Why not support the woman?  Why would NARAL feel the need to be political at this stage in the campaign?  


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:59:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thow it back at you: (none / 0)

Why support the woman, if both support women's rights?

Why should gender make any difference at all in the issue?

They're not "being political," they're leading the way in endorsing the Democratic nominee.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:23:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They are absolutely being political (none / 0)

This was a unilateral decision by the national leadership without any consultation with the grassroots. That grassroots is now organizing to fight back. It is an endorsement of a marginally pro-choice candidate over one who has a long record as an advocate for women's reproductive issues. It was intended, along with the Edwards endorsement, to deliver a one-two punch the day after Clinton's blow-out victory in WV the day before. You are blind if you think this isn't political.


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:28:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Marginally?" (2.00 / 1)

Obama has a 100% record from Planned Parenthood.  That's not "marginal."

And it's the national chapter's job to make sure the group's goals move forward.  I know it's an unpopular sentiment around here, but Clinton is not going to be the nominee.  

The sooner people get past their outrage, the sooner we can get to work ensuring reproductive freedom for the next generations.

The Edwards endorsement was political.  I don't think Obama even knew about NARAL before it happened.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:32:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Marginally?" (none / 0)

Yeah? And he's supposedly the most liberal Senator too. Look, I'm sorry you aren't aware, but some fucked up shit has been going down with both NARAL and PP for a few years now. Neither one of them lifted a finger to fight against Alito, even though they both used the impending vote to raise funds in order to fight it. There's been a shift away from those groups for a while now, and Jane Hamsher has been front and center in leading that fight. She called for a funding boycott in 2006.

And a lot of us don't buy the bullshit argument about Obama's "present" votes. We recognize political cowardice when we see it.


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:46:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Alas (2.00 / 1)

How do you combat willful ignorance? Anna Belle, you will see what you want to see, despite the truth. If you really see Obama, PP and NARAL as a part of some big conspiracy with the single focus of denying women reproductive rights, because they're not HRC, then then you need step back and get some distance from this nasty primary cycle.

I let things get to me the same way. Sometimes I need to take a break and come back in a few weeks after I get some emotional distance. Seriously, if you're so emotionally involved that you're seeing these conspiracies it will be good for your health to take a blogging break.


by luckymortal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:47:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice (none / 0)

Call me crazy and a conspiracy theorist all at once. You must be a real peach in real life, bub.

As I clearly stated, and you clearly ignored, there's been a problem for years, and the fight back has been lead by on of the leading voices in the Netroots--Jane Hamsher. I'm sorry you are so ignorant as to be completely unaware of a fight that's been going on for more than two years now, but your ignorance is not my fault. Educate yourself before you're so ignorant as to post such garbage again.


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:11:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right, I want to apologize... please (none / 0)

I was unfair, and my comment didn't come off the way I intended it. But I'd like to think I'm not aways such a  "peach," so let me offer an explanation, hopefully I'll do better this time.

Let me start this way: last night I had a dream that Hillary Clinton was trying to prevent me, personally, from buying and drinking my favorite artisan beer by stealing my place in line. I awoke in a sweat, clutching my pillow to my chest like my last bottle of sweet sweet dark lord imperial stout. Darn that Hillary Clinton! Darn her!

That's right, I had a ridiculously comical anxiety dream about the primary.

Now, in reality, that anxiety dream probably has a lot more to do with my stressful situation at work than the election, but I am forced to admit, I've allowed my feelings about the other candidate to become a little too personal.

And I see that I feel betrayed by progressives who choose to support her instead of the candidate who's values, experience and policies I'm sooo excited about.

So now, it looks like, in all likely hood, my candidate has won this hard-fought primary.

And what I want very much is to reach out to "the other side" and show you why I'm so excited about our candidate, and I want everyone who shares my values to be excited about him too. But it's very difficult to do without it sounding condescending or like I'm gloating or well, out of touch with how you must be feeling right now.

So, pardon the condescension, but let me be honest about how I see your statements on Obama and NARAL: I'm aware of the history of the problem you cite above, and to me, it's part of a long-term fight about strategy withing any movement of change--how best to enact that change. BUt to me, it' seems you are questioning other progressives' commitment to their values, not just their methods. It's hard, given my own emotional involvement, for me not to think you're a little to involved as well.

Anyway, what I would request of you is this: after Oregon, after Obama has won the pledged delegate count, the most fair and pre-agreed upon method for our party to determine "the will of the people," I would very much like you to give my candidate a second chance. I would like you to try to evaluate him relative to John McSame, not to your favorite candidate. And I need you to not try to undercut the legitmacy of our candidate or our party's pre-arranged and agreed-upon process. And I would like to have an non-defensive dialog with you so that I can try to show you what I see in our party's candidate.

But most importantly, I want you to tell me what you need from me, to make that possible. So please, help me not condescend and gloat. Help me communicate more effectively with you now.

Peace


by luckymortal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:32:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Losing is great for (none / 0)

fund-raising.


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

NARAL... (none / 0)

didn't want to support the loser. There isn't much more to it than that.

I think they could have waited until Clinton dropped out to endorse, and I can understand why Clinton and her supporters would feel this as a slap in the face. But politics is a brutal business. NARAL wants to have as much influence over an Obama administration as possible, and I image they felt endorsing now was the best way to ensure that.


by rebop on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:43:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They'll see their folly eventually (2.00 / 1)

So many are caught up in the contentious primary that they see the world in black and white.  McCain isn't even on the radar of the most fanatic supporters of each Democrat; all they care about is winning the nomination.  McCain is a convenient wedge or lever that they can use to scare people into voting for their candidate... "I can't allow that woman to get into the White House," or "He deserves to suffer for how he treated Hillary!"... "You're either with us or against us."

After the primary is over, most of them will come around and realize that the supporters of the other Democrat are not necessarally compromised, and that the groups that did admirable good work will still be doing good work that they can admire.

I only hope that happens before the general election, but... we can't be held hostage by people who are unwilling to see things from other perspectives.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:39:39 AM EST

NARAL (2.00 / 1)

isn't the sum total of support for abortion rights. NOW and Emily's list can also fight for these rights as do most Democratic politicians. I gave up on them long ago, when the endorsed Linc Chafee in an effort to keep GOP control of Congress in 06. Screw them.


by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:41:18 AM EST

Republican control of congress? (none / 0)

That was why they did it? Really?  I thought it was because he had a longer record of pro-choice voting and represented, as a Republican, an opportunity to de-partisanify the choice issue.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:35:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NARAL (none / 0)

Uh, I don't want to seem rude, but the point is the Supreme Court...

They are kind of immune to pressure of the sort that NARAL, et. al., can bring to bear.

If the angry Hillariots allow McSame to appoint 3 more justices, it'll be back to the bad old days for a long long long long time.

Back to the fifty's, complete with coat hangers and lye.  

That'll teach those Obamabots what happens when you exercise your vote misogynistically.  


by xdem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NARAL (none / 0)

I think you should refrain from using terms like Hillariots and Obamabots.

This was not the point of this diary.  

Thanks.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:43:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Their blood will be on your hands (2.00 / 1)

So NARAL is the ONLY organization supporting abortion rights?

I stopped supporting NARAL when they made the clueless decision to support Lincoln Chafee, a Republican who helps anti-choice judges get confirmed.  I don't think it serves the pro-choice cause to support Republicans.

I believe there are other organizations that advance the pro-choice cause more effectively than NARAL.  Do you think I have "blood on my hands" because my money goes to other organizations?  What an unproductive and, frankly, disgusting thing to say.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:49:53 AM EST

I am not a one-issue voter BUT (2.00 / 1)

I agree with you that NARAL is a key supporter of our right to choose. I don't agree with all of their decisions, but I find nothing wrong with their decision to support the presumptive nominee who bears a 100 percent rating in the area they support.


accepting McLettuce is like being 9 years old and forced to eat your own cooking
by Sychotic1 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:54:41 AM EST

Re: I am not a one-issue voter BUT (none / 0)

I've got nothing wrong with it, eitehr. But likewise I've got nothing wrong with supporters who don't like it and decide to take their money elsewhere. One can support another pro choice group and not have "Blood on their hands." My mind was made up against them in 06 when they tried to keep Congress in GOP control.


by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:57:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am not a one-issue voter BUT (2.00 / 1)

I send money - not a lot because I don't earn very much, to a broad spectrum of women's groups.

I don't always agree with all the positions they take, but what is important to me is that they be supported.  

Coming out of an era where there were few organized voices for women, I have supported groups like  NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, WARN (Women of All Red Nations) Third World Women's Alliance, Redstockings...many times supporting groups that don't or didn't agree with each other.

Women's voices are diverse. The movement is not monolithic.  

But now is the time that we have a chance to seize control of the House and Senate (imho)

We need more funding, better legislation, better education, and a revamping of the Supreme Court.

Let's keep the focus, and keep our eyes on the prize.

Thanks for commenting - I have to leave to get to school.  BBIAB.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:19:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Their blood will be on your hands (none / 0)

NARAL endorsed Lincoln Chafee in 2000 because his Democratic opponent, Robert Weygand, was 100% anti-choice.  They endorsed him again in 2006 because, at the time, the presumptive Democratic nominee was James Langevin, who is also 100% anti-choice.


by BluePoster on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST

Re: Their blood will be on NARAL's Hands (none / 0)

Obama was going to support John Roberts until an aide pointed out to him that voting for Roberts would be political suicide.

NARAL's national chapter endorsed Obama without even consulting with any affiliates. Now, those affiliates are rebelling. They're dismayed and outraged that they are being hijacked and held hostage to national chapter's disregard for women.

NARAL endorsed Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman is the same Senator who dismissed women's medical safety. And Joe Lieberman is the same Senator Barack Obama requested as his Mentor when Obama first arrived at the Senate.

I cannot imagine ANY woman could take NARAL's endorsement of Obama seriously. This is all about getting money from the Obama campaign. And, that's really a despicable capitulation, that will come back to haunt them in the end. Women support Hillary Clinton; NARAL just told women they're not as important as NARAL's purse.

Obama is letting it be known that he doesn't want "progressives" to donate to progressive organizations anymore--he wants them to donate only to Obama. He's let it be known that VoteVets, Progressive Media, Center for American Progress and other organizations--possibly even NARAL--will be off-limites under the new Obama Regime.

Is this a man into whose hands you would put your friend's lives?

I wouldn't. And, you shouldn't.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:21:15 AM EST

Are you on drugs? (2.00 / 1)

Because if you are, then I'd like some.

I've got a great big [citation needed] on your assertion that Obama doesn't want people to give money to progressive causes or, in fact, the rest of your unconscionable comment.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Have a citation or source (none / 0)

On the Obama/Roberts statement you make?  I remember the statement he made where the reason he voted against was the 5% of the decisions the court made that were fuzzy and guided not by law/precedent but by the judges interpretation of the law.  His statement:

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-rem arks_of_sena/index.php


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:46:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Their blood will be on NARAL's Hands (none / 0)

"Obama is letting it be known that he doesn't want "progressives" to donate to progressive organizations anymore--he wants them to donate only to Obama. He's let it be known that VoteVets, Progressive Media, Center for American Progress and other organizations--possibly even NARAL--will be off-limites under the new Obama Regime."

Could you cite this please?  I have never heard of such a thing.  In Spanish the word for what you have just stated is "invento".


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. Excellent diary, highly recommended. (2.00 / 1)

Thank you.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:13:08 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.